running head: personality attributes of talented … · similar to regular females in great britain...
TRANSCRIPT
Personality Attributes of Talented Teenagers - 1 -
Running head: PERSONALITY ATTRIBUTES OF TALENTED TEENAGERS
Personality Attributes of Talented Teenagers
Jane Piirto
George Johnson
Ashland University
Ashland, OH, USA 44805
A Study Presented At The European Council for High Ability Conference
Pamplona, Spain
September, 2004
This is a Draft. Do not cite without permission.
Personality Attributes of Talented Teenagers - 2 -
Abstract
Using the theoretical framework of the Piirto Pyramid of
Talent Development, which posits that personality attributes
are extremely important in the development of talent, the
researchers administered the High School Personality
Questionnaire (N=474, M=158, F=316) and the Myers Briggs
Type Indicator (N=667, M=223, F=442) to gifted and talented
high school students ages 14 to 16. Results on the HSPQ
showed gender differences on Factors B (Intelligence), E.
(Dominance), I. (Sensitivity), and in Second Order Factors
(Independence, Tough-Mindedness, Creativity, and
Leadership). Results on the MBTI showed a preference for
Intuition (N) and Perception (P), with gender differences in
Feeling (F) and Thinking (T). Comparisons with similar
studies showed that the gifted and talented females were
similar to regular females in Great Britain on the HSPQ in
terms of high Boldness and Dominance, and that the gifted
and talented females and males were similar on the MBTI to
other gifted and talented high school students.
PERSONALITY ATTRIBUTES OF TALENTED
TEENAGERS
The Piirto Pyramid of Talent Development (Piirto,1994;
1998; 1999; 2004) has, at its base, Personality Attributes.
Many studies have emphasized that successful creators in all
domains have certain personality attributes in common. These
make up the base of the model (See Figure 1). These
personality attributes are the affective aspects of what a person
needs in order to develop talents fully.
Figure 1: Place Piirto Pyramid of Talent Development About
Here
These rest on the foundation of genes. Among these
personality attributes are androgyny, creativity, imagination,
insight, intuition, motivation, naivete, or openness to
experience; overexcitabilities, passion for work in a domain,
perceptiveness, persistence, preference for complexity,
resilience, risk-taking, self-discipline, self-efficacy, tolerance
for ambiguity, and volition, or will. Here is research support
for the personality attributes: androgyny (Barron, 1968, 1995;
Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, & Whalen, 1993; Piirto & Fraas,
1995); creativity (Renzulli, 1978; Tannenbaum, 1983);
imagination (Dewey, 1934; Langer, 1957; Plato; Santayana,
18996); insight (Sternberg and Davidson, 1985; Davidson,
1992); intuition (Myers and McCaulley, 1985); motivation
(Amabile, 1873; Rothenberg, 1990); naiveté, or openness to
experience (Ghiselin, 1952; Cattell, 1971); the presence of
overexcitabilities, called OEs (Dabrowski, 1964; 1967; 1972;
Dabrowski and Piechowski, 1977); Piechowski,1979;
Silverman, 1993); passion for work in a domain (Benbow,
1992; Block & Kremen, 1996; Bloom, 1985; Piirto, 1994);
perceptiveness (Myers and McCaulley 1985); perfectionism
(Silverman, 1993); persistence (Renzulli, 1978); preference
for complexity (Barron, 1968; 1995); resilience (Jenkins-
Friedman 1992; Block & Kremen,1996); risk-taking
(MacKinnon 1978; Torrance 1987); self-discipline (Renzulli
1978); self-efficacy (Zimmerman, Bandura and Martinez-
Pons 1992); Sternberg and Lubart 1992); tolerance for
ambiguity (Barron, 1968; 1995); and volition, or will. (Corno
and Kanfer, 1993). The consolidation of personality traits into
the Big Five (McCrae & Costa, 1999) is noted here, but earlier
work on creative people has noted these other traits as listed,
and so I include them here.
The Instruments
High School Personality Questionnaire
The High School Personality Questionnaire (HSPQ) was
developed by Cattell in the 1970s (Cattell, 1973). It has 142
items in a forced-choice format, measuring 14 personality
scales called factors. These are 14 of the 16 in the adult
version, the 16 Personality Factors Questionnaire (Cattell).
These factors are scored on a continuum from Low (a standard
score of 1 to 4) to High (a standard of 7 to 10). The standard
scores are called stens (meaning a ten point scale). The mean
is 5.5 and the standard deviation is 2.0. Raw scores are
converted, by gender, into sten scores). Factors are these:
Factor A, Warmth; Factor B, Intelligence; Factor C, Emotional
Stability; Factor D, Excitability; Factor E, Dominance; Factor
F, Cheerfulness; Factor G, Conformity; Factor H, Boldness,
Factor I, Sensitivity; Factor O, Withdrawal; Factor Q2, Self-
sufficiency; Factor Q3, Self-discipline; Factor Q-4, Tension.
These factors are combined in various ways, into second-order
factors of Extraversion, Anxiety, Tough-poise, Independence,
School Achievement, Creativity, and Leadership. Here are the
adjectival descriptions from the manual (Cattell, Cattell, &
Johns, 1984; Cattell, 1973).
Factor A, Warmth: A-minus is cool, reserved, impersonal,
detached, formal, aloof, critical, stands by his own ideas,
precise, objective, distrustful, skeptical, rigid, cold, and prone
to sulk. Factor A-+ is good natured, easygoing, ready to
cooperate, likes to participate, attentive to people, softhearted,
casual, trustful, adaptable, careless, ―goes along,‖
warmhearted, and laughs readily.
Factor B: Intelligence. B-minus is concrete-thinking, less
intelligent, low mental capacity, unable to handle abstract
problems, apt to be less well organized. B-+ is abstract
thinking, more intelligent, bright, high general mental
Personality Attributes of Talented Teenagers - 3 -
capacity, insightful, fast-learning, intellectually adaptable,
inclined to have more intellectual interests.
Factor C: Emotional Stability. C-minus is affected by
feelings, emotionally less stable, easily annoyed, gets
emotional when frustrated, changeable in attitudes and
interests, easily perturbed, evasive of responsibilities, tending
to give up, worrying, gets into fights and problem situations.
C-plus is emotionally stable, mature, faces reality, calm,
emotionally mature, constant in interests, does not let
emotional needs obscure the realities of the situation, adjusts
to facts, unruffled, shows restraint in avoiding difficulties.
Factor D: Excitability. D-minus is phlegmatic,
undemonstrative, deliberate, placid, inactive, stoical,
complacent, deliberate, not easily jealous, self-effacing,
constant, not restless. D-plus is excitable, impatient, attention-
getting, show-off, excitable, overactive, prone to jealousy,
self-assertive, egotistical, distractible, and shows many
nervous symptoms.
Factor E: Dominance. E-minus is submissive, humble, mild,
easily led, accommodating, submissive, dependent,
considerate, diplomatic, expressive, conventional, conforming,
easily upset by authority, and humble. E-plus is dominant,
assertive, aggressive, stubborn, competitive, bossy, assertive,
self-assured, independent-minded, stern, hostile, solemn,
unconventional, rebellious, headstrong, and admiration
demanding.
Factor F: Cheerfulness. F-minus is sober, restrained,
prudent, taciturn, serious, silent, introspective, full of cares,
concerned, reflective, incommunicative, sticks to inner values,
slow, and cautions. F-plus is cheerful, enthusiastic, impulsive,
heedless, expressive, talkative, cheerful, happy go-lucky,
frank, expressive, reflects the group, quick and alert.
Factor G: Conformity. G-minus is expedient, disregards the
rules, self-indulgent, quitting, fickle, frivolous self-indulgent,
slack, indolent, undependeable, and disregards obligations to
people. G-plus is conforming, conscientious, persistent,
moralistic, staid, rule bound, persevering, determined,
responsible, emotionally disciplined, consistently ordered,
conscientious, dominated by a sense of duty, concerned about
moral standards and rules.
Factor H: Boldness. H-minus is shy, threat-sensitive, timid,
hesitant, intimidated, shy, withdrawn, retiring in the face of
the opposite sex, emotionally cautious, apt to be embittered,
restrained, rule-bound, restricted in interests, careful,
considerate, quick to see dangers. H-plus is bold,
venturesome, unhibited, can take stress, adventurous, likes
meeting people, active, has an overt interest in the opposite
sex, responsive, genial, friendly, impulsive, has emotional and
artistic interests, and is carefree and does not see danger signs.
Factor I: Sensitivity. I-minus is tough-minded, self-reliant,
no-nonsense, rough, realistic, unsentimental, expects little,
self-reliant, takes responsibility, hard to the point of cynicism,
has few artistic responses but is not lacking in taste, unaffected
by ―fancies,‖ acts on practical, logical evidence, keeps to the
point, does not dwell on physical disabilities. Factor I-plus is
tender-minded, sensitive, overprotected, intuitive, refined,
fidgety, expecting affection and attention, clinging, insecure,
seeking help and sympathy, kindly, gentle, indulgent to self
and others, artistically fastidious, affected, theatrical,
imaginative in inner life and in conversation, acts on sensitive
intuition, attention-seeking, and flighty.
Factor J: Withdrawal. The J-minus scorer is vigorous, goes
readily with the group, is zestful, given to action, likes
attention, sinks personality into group enterprise, and accepts
common standards. The J-minus individual is withdrawn,
guarded, internally restrained, circumspecttly individualistic,
guarded, wrapped up in self, fastidiously obstructive,
neurasthenically fatigued, and evaluates coldly.
Factor O: Apprehension. The O-minus scorer is self-assured,
secure, feels free of guilt, untroubled, self-satisfied, self-
confident, cheerful, resilient, impenitent, placid, expedient,
insensitive to people’s approval or disapproval, does not care,
rudely vigorous, has no fears, and is given to simple action.
The O-plus scorer is apprehensive, self-blaming, guilt-prone,
insecure, worrying, anxious, easily touched, overcome by
moods, has a strong sense of obligation, sensitive to people’s
approval and disapproval, scrupulous, fussy, hypochondriacal
and inadequate, has phobic symptoms, is lonely and brooding.
Factor Q2: Self-Sufficiency. Q2-minus scorers are group-
oriented, ―joiners,‖ followers, listen to others, and socially
group dependent. Factor Q2-plus scorers are self-sufficient,
resourceful, and prefer their own decisions.
Factor Q3: Self-Discipline. Q3-minus scorers have
undisciplined self conflict, are lax, careless of social rules,
uncontrolled, and follow their own urges. Q3-plus scorers are
self-disciplined, controlled, socially precise, compulsive, self-
respecting, exacting will power, and follow their own self-
image.
Factor Q4: Tension. Q4-minus scorers are relaxed, tranquil,
composed, have low drive, and are unfrustrated. Q4-plus
scorers are tense, frustrated, overwrought, and have high
drive.
Second Order Factors:
Extraversion. This factor is made up of Q2-minus, A, F, H,
and J-minus. Extraversion-minus scorers are self-sufficient,
cool, sober, shy, and withdrawn. Extraversion-plus scorers are
group-oriented, warm, cheerful, bold, and vigorous.
Personality Attributes of Talented Teenagers - 4 -
Anxiety. This factor is made up of D, Q4, C-minus, O, H-
minus, and Q3-minus. Anxiety-minus scorers are phlegmatic,
relaxed, emotionally stable, self assured, bold, and self-
disciplined. Anxiety-plus scorers are excitable, tense, affected
by feelings, apprehensive, shy, and undisciplined.
Tough Poise. This factor is made up of I-minus, E, and A-
minus. Tough poise-minus scorers are tender-minded,
submissive, and warm. Tough poise-plus scorers are tough-
minded, dominant, and cool.
Independence. This factor is made up of J, E, and Q2.
Independence-minus scorers are subdued, virous, submissive,
and group-oriented. Independence-plus scorers are withdrawn,
dominant, and self-sufficient.
Though formulas were provided in the Manual (Cattell,
Cattell,. & Johns, 1984) for School Achievement, Leadership,
and Creativity, adjectival descriptions were not provided. We
did calculate these second order factors (See Table 1).
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) Form G is a
forced-choice instrument of 126 items. Based on the Jungian
theory of personality type, the MBTI provides data on four
sets of preferences, Introversion-Extraversion, Sensing-
Intuition, Feeling-Thinking, and Judging-Perceiving. These
preferences result in 16 learning styles, or types. A type is a
combination of the four preferences.
The MBTI has been widely used in education, in
business, and in counseling. A literature also exists on the
MBTI and gifted students. Mills and Parker (1998) described
cross-cultural similarities and differences between gifted
students studying with the Center for Talented Youth at Johns
Hopkins University, and with similar Irish students. These
students were highly gifted, scoring in the top 1 % on
measures of cognitive ability. Myers and McCaulley (1985)
described studies of National Merit Finalists (INFP), of gifted
seventh to ninth grade males (ENTP) and females (ENFP); of
creative men (INTP) and creative women (INFP), and of
schoolteachers (ESFJ). N’s received higher grades than S’s
and J’s received higher grades than P’s.
The MBTI has been found to be associated with
academic aptitude: Myers and McCaulley (1985) said, ―To
the extent that academic work requires the ability to deal with
concepts and ideas (Introversion—I), and with symbols and
abstractions (Intuition—N), academic aptitude should be, and
is, associated with a preference for introversion and intuition‖
(p. 123). The Extraversion-Introversion measure indicates
preference of how a person prefers to relate to the outer world.
Extraverts prefer action and sociability. Introverts prefer
contemplation and are interested in ideas. On the Sensing and
Intuition continuum, people who prefer Sensing are interested
in the concrete, and with the known. Intuition preferers like to
work with the unknown, the abstract, and with symbols. On
the Thinking and Feeling measure, Feeling (F) types score
higher when verbal strengths are called for, and Thinking (T)
types get higher scores when analysis is in order. Perceptive
(P) types have greater breadth of knowledge, and are more
adaptable and impulsive than judging (J) types and usually
score higher on aptitude tests. However, J types get higher
grades than would be expected by their aptitude scores
because they organize their work and meet deadlines.
Procedure
Ninth and tenth graders, ages 14 to 16 (N=474; M=158;
F=316) were administered the HSPQ and the MBTI while
attending a summer honors institute at a small midwestern
university. Human Subjects Research Permission was obtained
and permission was granted by both the students and their
parents. Ninth and tenth grade students eligible to attend the
16 Ohio Summer Honors Institutes are identified as gifted and
talented by the Ohio Rule for the Identification of Gifted
Students. Ohio identifies gifted students in four areas:
Superior Cognitive; Specific Academic; Creativity; and Visual
and Performing Arts.1 Identification is mandatory in Ohio.
Notification of parents is mandatory. Service is not. The Ohio
Legislature has financed the tuition-free 16 Ohio Summer
Honors Institutes to any freshman and sophomore high school
students who have been identified as gifted and talented in any
of the four areas.
Demographics
Ohio is a state with 11,373,541 people, the 7th
largest
populated in the U.S., located in the Great Lakes Area, with its
center 500 miles from New York City and 400 miles from
Washington, DC. Eighty-five percent of Ohioans are white,
11.5 percent are black, 1.9 percent are Latino, and 1.5 percent
are Asian.
The Participants
Students ranged in age from 14 to 17. Most students had
been identified as gifted in the Superior Cognitive and
Specific Academic areas of the Ohio Rule for the
Identification of Gifted and Talented Students, SHB 282.
Their GPAs ranged between 3.0 and 4.0, with the majority
having a GPA of 4.0. They had all passed all five sections of
the Ohio Proficiency Test. Recommendation letters for the
students used descriptors such as ―outstanding work ethic,‖
―natural born leader,‖ ―mature,‖ ―enthusiastic,‖ ―dedicated,‖
and ―conscientious.‖ The students’ ethnicities and
demographics of residence (rural, urban, suburban) were
commensurate with the state demographics. The application
form does not ask for parent income or other financial
information, but about 1/3 of the students attended on
Personality Attributes of Talented Teenagers - 5 -
scholarship. (Ball & Starkey, 2000; Shadle & Shadle, 2001).
Students came from 36 of the 88 counties in Ohio, with most
from Cuyahoga County (the Cleveland area), Franklin County
(the Columbus area), and Stark County (the Akron area). Most
(45%) were from suburban areas, with 19% from urban areas
and 35% from rural areas.
Results
HSPQ:
A recent study done in Great Britain (Bourke, 2002), provided
data about the norms that is more up to date than that in the
norms manual (Cattell, Cattell, & Johns, 1984; Cattell, 1973).
Thus, a table was constructed that includes the recent Great
Britain population. (See Table 1).
Gender Differences
The results mirrored those in an earlier study (Piirto & Fraas,
1995). Gender differences were calculated. Most sten scores
were within one standard deviation of the mean, with no
significant differences. As expected for an academically
talented group, Factor B (Intelligence) was higher for both
genders, with males (7.5) being significantly higher than
females (7.2) . On Factor E (Dominance), females were
significantly higher than males. The males scored right at the
mean (5.5) , and the females were above the mean (6.6;
p<.001). On Factor I (Sensitivity), males were significantly
higher (6.9; p<.05) than the females (6.1). This factor seems to
be similar to the MBTI Sensing and Intuition. The finding on
the MBTI that the students preferred intuition seems to be
related to this I-plus score here. Cattell, Cattell, and Johns
(1984) stated that those who score I+ ―avoid rough and
adventurous situations, like to depend on the teacher, are
artistic and neat but not organized‖ (p. 16). They don’t seem to
like to play physical games. Neurotics score very high on I.
Occupationally, those who score high on I tend to be artists or
people in the helping professions.
Females were significantly higher on the Second Order
Factors of Tough-Poise and Independence. (F=5.3; p<.05;
M=4.8) Of Tough Poise, Cattell, Cattell, and Johns (1984)
said, that tough poise ―describes a person who views the world
objectively and makes decisions from cool, rational thought.‖
Since both the Ohio gifted and talented females and males
scored below the mean, with the males scoring significantly
lower than the females, this finding seems to uphold the
androgyny personality attribute. ―Low tough-poised
individuals tend to receive higher ratings of creativity‖ (p. 21).
High scorers on Independence (both males and females scored
well above the mean, with the females scoring significantly
higher than the males) have ―a very strong preference for
being in control and doing things his or her own way‖ (p. 21).
Males were significantly higher on the Second Order
Factors of Creativity and Leadership. Creativity was derived
from teacher ratings of demonstrated creative ability of 146
eighth-graders in one Midwest school, at an undisclosed time,
perhaps in the early 1980s (Cattell, Cattell, and Johns, 1984).
This criterion might be insufficient to conclude that the
students were creative, and thus this finding that the students
in this population are high in creativity might not hold.
Likewise, the formula for leadership was derived from a study
of 641 sixth to eighth graders. The study was never published
(Johns, 1982). These findings are confusing, as their validation
does not seem to be adequate.
Similar results were found in Great Britain, and so the
finding that gifted girls are more dominant and more tough-
minded than gifted boys, is only partially true, because the
gifted girls are similar to the regular girls in Great Britain.
Bourke (2002) said, ―the most striking gender differences
occur in the case of factors E (submissive v. dominant) and I
(toughminded v. tenderminded). While the boys are above
average in dominance, the girls are significantly higher‖ (p.
36). The Ohio youth, both males and females, were higher on
dominance than the Great Britain youth, but the Ohio females
were significantly higher than the Ohio males, just as were the
Great Britain females higher than the Great Britain males..
Factor E indicates that a high scorer can ―exert one’s will over
others. High scorers tend to express their views forcefully,
subjugating the wishes of others to their own‖ (Bourke, p. 36).
The girls are ―more dominant, assertive, and competitive‖ (p.
36) than the boys, which was not true for the original norm
sample of U.S. students (Cattell, Cattell, & Johns, 1984).
Cattell (1973) said that those high in dominance demonstrate
―the extent to which the individual has the confidence and
need to pit himself against social and material opposition‖ (p.
163).
General findings
Findings that are more than one sten from the mean
(above 6.5 and below 4.5) will be mentioned here, since an
increase in number of participants brings findings closer to the
mean, this seems a reasonable way of discussing these.
The group scored 7.33 on Factor B, Intelligence, as
would be expected.
The group scored 6.5 on Factor J, Withdrawal. Cattell,
Cattell, and Johns (1984) stated that J+ people ―like to act on
reasoned grounds, but are apt to be rigid, or at least,
uncompromising, as seen from the standpoint of easy
acceptance of group feelings and actions‖ (p. 17). Cattell
(1973) said, that J+ ―has been well described as the Hamlet
factor. . . cagey and wary of people and careful not to involve
himself with them‖ (p. 179). The high J scorer ―shows more
than average behavioral control by the mother and less than
average by the father.‖ The person with high J might be
accused of laziness and nonparticipation, but ―has confidence
in his own thinking and is willing to stand by his decisions‖
Personality Attributes of Talented Teenagers - 6 -
(p. 179). This factor is also related to the finding of
Independence, which is 7.66.
Likewise, they scored above the mean on School
Achievement ((6.97), which would be expected of this
population. School Achievement was defined with correlations
to the Stanford Achievement Test, Metropolitan Achievement
Test and the Stanford Achievement Test (Cattell, Cattell, &
Johns, 1984) with many studies of diverse groups, and so this
finding seems to be more robust than could be concluded from
the Creativity and Leadership finding.
They scored below the mean in Factor O, Apprehension,
or Guilt Proneness. O-minus people make good administrators
(Cattell, 1973). Occupations of those with Low O were
―military airmen, competitive athletes, administrators,
physicists, mechanics, airline hostesses, psychologists,
domestic help‖ (p. 173). They are often selected as leaders.
This would be related to the leadership finding of 6.61.
Myers Briggs Type Indicator
The main finding in this study confirms other findings
we have made (Piirto, 1998; Piirto, Rogers, Beabout, Hall,
Swonger, Fraas, 2000), and those made by others (see the
many studies by Mills of the CTY students). That is, that
gifted and talented teenagers, like creative and high achieving
adults, prefer Intuition and Perception (NP). Piirto
(1992/1998;1999; 2004)in her research on creativity in
domains, has shown that the preferred N and P is universal in
the MBTI studies done on visual artists, creative writers,
scientists, mathematicians, inventors, entrepreneurs, actors,
dancers, and musical composers. See Tables 2, 3, and 4. A
look at the intensity of the preference indicates that this
finding is robust (See Table 4).
What do these studies mean? The personalities of
talented youth are different from those of regular and
vocational youth in significant ways – they are more
intelligent, more creative, display more leadership. The males
are more extreme than the females, especially in their
tendermindedness, which suggests an androgynous aspect.
The females resemble other females, except in the dimension
of Thinking, where the gifted girls preferred thinking to a
greater extent than other girls (Piirto, 1998).
Implications for teaching should become part of the
pedagogy for the gifted and talented.
How does one teach intuitive and perceptive students? Since
most students prefer Sensing, classrooms have been designed
around concrete, hands-on, constructivist experiences that
appeal to Sensing students. Students who prefer Introversion
and Intuition prefer to work alone and may not volunteer, even
though they do well academically. Since the classrooms are
designed around the other students, they may underachieve,
rebel, and lose self esteem. Students who have the IP
preference are always seeking to learn, but they are also likely
to procrastinate and not complete their work. They seek
novelty, are unconventional, and like to look at old ideas in
new ways. They are resistant to strictures and easily bored
with routines. Teachers do not appreciate their approach to
learning and their seeking of the new. They don’t do all the
problems if they know how to do the procedure. They turn in
sloppy work about great ideas.
Implications for teacher training are obvious.
References
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York:
Springer-Verlag. Barron, F. (1968). Creativity and personal freedom. New York: Van
Nostrand.
Barron, F. (1995). No rootless flower: An ecology of creativity. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Benbow, C. P. (1992). Mathematical talent: Its nature and consequences. In
N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, and D. L. Ambroson, Eds. Talent development: Proceedings from the 1991 Henry B. and Jocelyn
Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development (pp. 95-123). Unionville, NY: Trillium Press.
Block, J., & Kremen, A.M. (1996). IQ and ego resiliency. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70 (2), 346-361. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (l985). Developing talent in young people. New York:
Ballantine.
Bourke, R. (2002). Gender differences in personality among adolescents. Psychology, Evolution, & Gender, 4 (1), 31-41.
Cattell, R.D., Cattell, M.D., & Johns, E. (1984). Manual and norms for the
High School Personality Questionnaire. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
Corno, L., & Kanfer, R. (1993). The role of volition in learning and
performance. In L. Darling-Hammond, Ed. Review of research in education, 19, (pp. 301-342). Washington, DC: American Educational
Research Association.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow. New York: Cambridge. Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented
teenagers: The roots of success and failure. New York: Cambridge
University Press. Davidson, J.E. (1992). Insights about giftedness: The role of problem solving
abilities. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, and D. L. Ambroson, Eds.
Talent development: Proceedings from the 1991 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development (pp.
125-142). Unionville, NY: Trillium Press.
Feldman, D.H. (1982). A developmental framework for research with gifted children. In D. Feldman (Ed.), New directions for child development:
Developmental approaches to giftedness and creativity, 17, (pp. 31-46).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Feldman, D.H., & Piirto, J. (1995.) Parenting talented children. In Handbook
of parenting, ed. M. Bornstein, 285-304. NJ: Erlbaum.
Ghiselin, B. (1952). The creative process. New York: Bantam. Goertzel, V., & Goertzel, M. G. (1962). Cradles of eminence. Boston: Little,
Brown.
Goertzel, V., Goertzel, M. G. & Goertzel, T. (1978). Three hundred eminent personalities: A psychosocial analysis of the famous. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Jenkins-Friedman, R. (1992). Zorba's conundrum: Evaluative aspect of self-concept in talented individuals. Quest, 3(1): 1-7.
Johns, E.F. (1982). The relationship of personality and achievement to
creativity and leadership behaviors. Unpublished manuscript.
Personality Attributes of Talented Teenagers - 7 - MacKinnon, D. W. (1975). IPAR’s contribution to the conceptualization and
study of creativity. In I.A. Taylor and J.W. Getzels (Eds.),
Perspectives in creativity (pp. 60-89). Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing
Company. MacKinnon, D. (1978). In search of human effectiveness. Buffalo, NY:
Bearly.
Mills, C. J., & Parker, W.D. (1998). Cognitive-psychological profiles of gifted adolescents from Ireland and the U.S.: Cross-societal comparisons.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22 (1), 1-16.
Myers, I.B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Pearce, C. (1968). Creativity in young science students. Journal of Exceptional Children, 35, 121-126.
Piechowski, M.M. (1979). Developmental potential. In N. Colangelo and
R.T. Zaffrann, Eds. New voices in counseling the gifted, pp. 25-57. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Piirto, J. (1992/1998). Understanding those who create. Tempe, AZ: Gifted
Psychology Press. Piirto, J. (1994). Talented children and adults: Their development and
education. New York: Macmillan.
Piirto, J. (1995a). Deeper and broader: The Pyramid of Talent Development in the context of the giftedness construct. In M.W. Katzko and F.J.
Mönks (Eds.), Nurturing talent: Individual needs and social ability (pp.
10-20). Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the European Council for High Ability. The Netherlands: Van Gorcum, Assen.
Plato, The Ion. In Great Books of the Western World, Vol. 7. (1952)
Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica. Plomin, R. (1997). Genetics and intelligence. In N. Colangelo and G. Davis
(Eds.), Handbook of Gifted Education, 2nd Ed. (pp. 67-74).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Renzulli, J. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi
Delta Kappan, 60: 180-184, 261.
Rothenberg, A. (1990). Creativity and madness. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Silverman, L. K.,(Ed). (1993). Counseling the gifted and talented. Denver,
CO: Love.
Simonton, D. K. (1984). Genius, creativity, and leadership: Historiometric inquiries. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Simonton, D. K. (1986). Biographical typicality, eminence and achievement
styles. Journal of Creative Behavior, 20 (1), 17-18. Simonton, D. K. (1988). Scientific genius. New York: Harvard University
Press.
Simonton, D. K. (1992). The child parents the adult: On getting genius from giftedness. in N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, and D. L. Ambroson
(Eds.)., Talent Development: Proceedings from 1991 Henry and
Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development (pp. 278-297). Unionville, NY: Trillium.
Simonton, D. K. (1994). Greatness: Who makes history and why. New
York: The Guilford Press. Simonton, D. K. (1999). The origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on
creativity. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sternberg, R., & Davidson, J. (1985). Cognitive development in the gifted and talented. In F. Horowitz and F. O'Brien.(Eds.), The gifted and
talented: A developmental perspective (pp. 37-74). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association. Sternberg, R., & Lubart, T.I. (1991). An investment theory of creativity and
its development. Human Development, 34: 1-31.
Tannenbaum, A. (1983). Gifted children. New York; Macmillan. Taylor, C. W. (1974). Multiple talent teaching. Today’s Education. 71-74.
Torrance, E. P. (1987). Teaching for creativity. In S. Isaksen (Ed.),
Frontiers of creativity research: Beyond the basics, pp. 190-215. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Ltd.
Wiggins, J. (Ed.). (1996). The five-factor model of personality. New York:
Guilford Press. Winner, E. (1996). Gifted children. New York: Basic.
Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-
motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research
Journal, 29(3): 663-676.
Table 2: Number and Preference of Talented 9th
and 10th
Graders in Ohio on the MBTI
IST
J
ISFJ INFJ INTJ ISTP ISFP INFP INTP ESTP ESFP ENTP ENF
P
ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ
F N=442 25
5%
12
2.7%
34
7%
19
4%
4
1%
8
2%
58
13%
33
7%
6
1.5%
12
2.7%
36
8%
106
24%
21
4.7%
13
3%
29
6.5%
26
5.8%
M
N=223
20 8%
3 1.3%
6 2.6%
17 7.5%
7 3.1%
2 ,08%
22 9.7%
45 20%
6 2.6%
4 1.7%
30 13.3%
39 17.3%
8 3.5%
2 .08%
1 .004%
13 5.7%
Total
N=667
45
6.7%
15
2.2%
40
6%
36
5%
11
1.6%
10
1.4%
80
12%
78
11.6%
12
1.7%
16
2.4%
66
9.8%
145
21.7%
29
4.3%
15
2.2%
30
4.4%
39
5.8%
Table 3: Comparison of Ohio Talented Youth with
Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth on MBTI (based on Mills & Parker, 2002)
Types CTY Male
N=668
Ohio Male
n=225
CTY Female
N=559
Ohio Female
N=442
CTY Total
N=1,247
Ohio Total
N=667
ISTJ 10.8% 8.8% 6.8% 5% 9% 6.7%
ISFJ 2% 1.3% 2.3% 2.7% 2.2% 2.2%
INFJ 2.3% 2.6% 7.3% 7% 4.6% 5.9%
INTJ 10.5% 7.5% 7.9% 4% 9.3% 5.3%
ISTP 4.7% 3.1% 2.5% 1% 3.7% 1.6%
ISFP 1.7% .08% .7% 2% 1.4% 1.5%
INFP 6.5% 9.7% 14.7% 13% 10.2% 12%
INTP 17.7% 20% 11.3% 7% 14.8% 11.7%
ESTP 5.1% 2.6% .9% 1.5% 3.2% 1.7%
ESFP .4% 1.7% 3% 2.7% 1.6% 2.4%
ENFP 9.9% 13.3% 18.2% 24% 13.6% 21.7%
ENTP 14.4% 17.3% 8.6% 8% 11.8% 9.9%
ESTJ 3.2% 3.5% 3.8% 4.7% 3.4% 4.3%
ESFJ .7% .08% 3.4% 3% 1.9% 2.2%
ENFJ 2.2% .004% 3.6% 6.5% 2.8% 4.5%
ENTJ 7.8% 5.7% 4.8% 5.8% 6.5% 5.8%
Table 4: Intensity of Preferences for Ohio Talented Youth on the MBTI
Preference Males: Mean Total Intensity=95 Females; Mean Total Intensity=92 Combined Total =93
18377+35854=54231/582=94
Mean Intensity Percent Mean Intensity Percent
Extraversion 20.5 47% 22.7 53%
Introversion 16 53% 46 47%
Sensing 20.8 26% 38 25%
Intuition 23 74% 26 75%
Thinking 57.1 73% 18 39%
Feeling 15 27% 19 61%
Judging 22.6 31% 22 39%
Perception 28 68% 16 59%
Table 1: Mean and (standard deviation) sten scores by gender on the HSPQ
F
act
o
r Low description High description Ohio gifted
male
N=158
Ohio gifted
female
N=316
All
Ohio
N=474
British
regular male
(Bourke,
2002)
N=464
British regular
female
(Bourke, 2002)
N=606 A reserved outgoing 5.92 (2.44) 6.02 (1.90) 5.97 6.32 (1.76) 6.17 (1.61)
B less intelligence more intelligent 7.54 (1.49) *** 7.13 (1.76) 7.33 6.15 (1.83) 5.63 (1.99) ***
C affected by feelings emotionally stable 6.62 (2.18) 6.31 (1.94) 6.46 5.89 (1.92) 5.87 (1.68)
D phlegmatic excitable 5.00 (2.07) 5.30 (1.94) 5.15 5.40 (1.89) 5.15 (1.58)
E submissive dominant 5.54 (2.32) 6.60 (2.07)*** 6.07 6.01 (1.20) 6.54 (1.83) ***
F serious cheerful 6.59 (2.29) 6.30 (2.13) 6.44 6.27 (2.11) 6.14 (1.90)
G expedient conforming 5.93 (2.05) 5.85 (2.04) 5.89 5.36 (2.00) 5.30 (1.84)
H shy adventurous 6.47 (2.32) 6.48 (2.25) 6.47 5.78 (1.82) 6.01 (1.93)*
I toughminded tenderminded 6.87 (2.32) ** 6.10 (2.12) 6.48 5.49 (1.91) 4.91 (1.84) ***
J vigorous withdrawn 6.69 (2.39) 6.62 (2.04) 6.65 5.35 (1.81) 5.70 (1.80) **
O self-assured apprehensive 4.23 (2.30) 4.60 (2.12) 4.41 4.95 (1.89) 5.31 (1.83)**
Q2 group-oriented self-sufficient 6.33 (2.38) 6.24 (1.97) 6.28 5.30 (2.00) 5.68 (1.79)**
Q3 undisciplined self
conflict
self-disciplined 5.37 (2.19) 5.38 (2.19) 5.38 5.14 (2.09) 5.29 (1.87)
Q4 relaxed tense 4.84 (2.21) 5.19 (2.14) 5.01 5.38 (1.83) 5.38 (1.76)
Second order factors
introversion extraversion 6.05 6.25 6.15 6.41 (2.02) 6.20 (1.73)
adjustment anxiety 4.37 4.70 4.64 5.37 (1.81) 5.32 (1.63)
emotionality tough poise 4.78 5.27 ** 4.02 6.04 (2.11) 6.17 (1.94)
subduedness independence 7.42 7.89** 6.97 5.95 (1.83) 6.58 (1.88) ***
low creativity high creativity 7.90** 6.99 7.44
low leadership high leadership 6.90** 6.33 6.61
low school achievement high school achievement
7.09 6.84
1. The Ohio Rule for the Identification of Gifted Students states that students identified for (1) Superior
Cognitive Giftedness must score two standard deviations above the mean minus the standard error of
measurement on an approved individual or group intelligence test; (2) Specific Academic Giftedness must score
above the 95th
percentile on an academic area on an approved individual or group achievement test; (3) Creative
thinking must score one standard deviation above the mean minus the standard error of measurement and at a
certain level on an approved checklist; (4) Visual and Performing Arts must show by display or audition and
must score at a certain level on an approved checklist.